About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
are to buy the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that miss. that is bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war but infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave them a military briefing for the alicia pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things fly into windows. that was the percentage actually expended. so i don't think this is a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration of just how proficient the united states was in waging war, especially can do this proficient adversary. but it also is a military affairs in a fundamentalist about is the car still has a boat here and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and therefore the military plan made that involve smart and weapons were designed with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth is not revolutionary at all, getting the enemy to do what she wanted. i can't see it as fares. and getting assigned from the back right of time, but i do want to give -- >> yet, let randy
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the best protection in this country in that job. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for your forthright comments today about the sequester. ironically, as i take some notes what you said and in the statement. it appears as of today the greatest threat to american national security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, senator. senator nelson. after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us that want a few minutes on the second round. you have been here for about three hours and you may need a fife or ten minute break. do you want that immediately foll
other americans. the pentagon never received the request from the state academy for security, and did not have the resources to get support on the ground in time to thwart the attackers. leon panetta is stepping down. this hearing is four hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today the committee welcomes secretary of defense, leon panetta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. to testify about the department of defense's response the deadly terrorist attack on the u.s. temporary mission facility in benghazi, libya, last year. and the findings of its internal review following that attack, including lessons learned from benghazi. we will be receiving testimony next tuesday morning on the impact of sequestration and/or a full-year continuing resolution on the department of defense witnesses. there will be department secretary of defense, the comp driller and the joint chiefs of staff. i hope today's hearing with inform the committee of any changes being made or proposed to the posture of u.s.
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
the drop program should fall under the pentagon, not the cia. you can listen to rebroadcast on c-span radio today. richards in result -- richard is on the line. what do you think about the drone's strikes? >> it is very vast modern-day technology. there will always be people killed a matter what we do. we have to grow up and understand that. the aclu is the biggest group of nuts on the planet. thank you. host: edmond, oklahoma. caller: i would just like to say one thing. the aclu is on the front of maintaining our constitutional rights. you may not agree with some of , but iflenges, i don't things they overall doing a good job. as far as the drones, they're working in that uncovered. in pakistan. i live in oklahoma and it has been in the paper recently that we have drone's being used here. one of your previous caller said there was a bill. from what i understand, we already have them here. we have a republican governor right now is in violation is not transparent, taking orders from right wing not jobs back east. and she now has these drones at her disposal. host: we heard earlier from form
get it worse? i worked in the pentagon. it would have made it a lot better. so we realized you really have to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics, communications, pass information, do car bombs, you have to take those out. we came up with a strategy, philadelphia would love this. it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we'll hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, two years, later, same month, same force, same fight, we were doing 300 raids a month. that was ten a night. now, if you stop and you say, well, ten a night, that's a lot, that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going on a raid at least one raid every night. every pilot's flying one or 2:00 raids every night. and these raids are not patrols. this is not with foot, these are going in the door, somebody is getting shot. extraordinary, and to do that though you can't use previous systems. one you've got to be able to bring in this intelligence on an industrial scale. you have got to be able -- we got to the point where instead of th
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
of the pentagon. it was clearly unsettled. it looked much worse than we had thought. the first hope was that if we got saddam hussein, that would solve the problem. we made an effort to do that. in december, we picked up saddam. it became obvious that, as one of my guys described, a bunch of former regime guys were not really running the beginning of the resistance, the beginning of the insurgency. zarqawi had started to build a network that took trained people, or iraqi sunnis -- trained people, iraqi sunnis, who had been dislocated from their position in society, sometimes government, sometimes military might and they were terrified of the shia, which was going to be dominant in the future. you had this combination of factors that was fear of the future, frustration against foreign invaders, and then -- not as much religious extremism as sometimes is perceived. it was not really an al qaeda religious movement. it was a political movement, but he got leveraged by some very clever work by people like abu musab al-zarqawi. we were very sure he was there at the beginning of early 2004. we started to
accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the tigre -- we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could. >> what kind of contract are you having with the
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)